> Well, I was of the opinion we agree. Looks like> I was wrong. I misinterpreted>> > Now, in standard terminology (where there> > is no such thing as a variable> > natural number) we have> > a natural number valued function of time> > (or of the number of FISs of d that "actually> > exist", an increasing function of time)> > m(t). It is trivial to see that there> > is an m(t) such that the "actually existing"> > line with index m(t), contains all> > "actually existing" FISs of d.>> WM: Exactly!>> I still do not understand why I cannot> take a simple natural number valued> function of time, say a(t) and set it> equal to m.

How can you call that "standard terminology". Who else says and thinksso? And do you really think so? When have you become that idea?